The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elma S. Beganovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  Given the multiple reliable sources in the article, the topic passes WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete  Topic seems to be as much a business listing as a bio.  It is not listed at bloomberg.com, which in my experience is an indicator that the topic is not Wikipedia notable.  I searched for "Elma S. Beganovich" and "Elma Beganovich" and also tried these names at businessweek.com.  As a topic related to a business listing, the topic is like a startup that might go out of business and hasn't been around long enough that its history would be of interest to readers.  See WP:SUSTAINED.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I scaled through most of the references, I guess the topic passes WP:GNG from every ramifications. Might be too harsh to let the page go.Fatima 77 (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very much in line with WP:BLP. A search on Googlenews also showcases reliable independent references reporting on the individual involved.Kendy2020 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThere are multiple independent or 3rd party references used in the text, Hence the topic scales through WP:GNG.Mendypendy (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.